From the Archives: LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia

LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia
June 25, 2013 11:51 PM MST

On the eve of the U.S. Supreme Court's historic rulings in two gay marriage cases -- Hollingsworth v. Perry, which addresses the Proposition 8 marriage ban in California, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- one Virginia candidate has released a campaign video declaring his intention to "lead the fight now—in this election—to recognize same-sex marriages in Virginia."

Libertarian nominee for Virginia governor Robert Sarvis announced his position on his campaign web site on June 25.

While Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe has said he supports marriage equality, he has also said that repeal of the state's constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage "would not be among his legislative priorities."

According to the Washington Post, McAuliffe said:

“If you look at the composure of the legislature, it’s not an issue that I’m going to spend my time focusing on. It’s not going to change during my four years as governor.”

For his part, Republican gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli, in his role as Virginia's Attorney General, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in the Hollingsworth (Prop 8) case arguing that “there is no coherent reason for government to recognize same-sex marriages.”

Libertarian contrast

In contrast to the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor, the LP's Sarvis declared this week that he will make marriage equality a priority in his administration.

Sarvis, whose own marriage is mixed-race, noted that it was a Virginia couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, who took the fight to end the state's ban on interracial marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court, and won.

"We all know the slogan, 'Virginia is for lovers,'" he says in the 48-second campaign video, "but today Virginia still isn't for all lovers."

For that reason, Sarvis explains, "I want to honor the Loving legacy and lead the fight now, in this election, to recognize same-sex marriage in Virginia."

Notably, as early as 1996, the Libertarian Party platform "urged the abolition of laws banning same-sex marriage."

The Sarvis campaign's video addressing marriage equality can be viewed on YouTube and also on the campaign's web site.


Publisher's note: This article is part of a series to mark June as Gay Pride Month. It was originally published on Examiner.com on June 25, 2013. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Guest Post: How families with 2 dads raise their kids

Andrew Leland, Rutgers University

Kentucky family court judge W. Mitchell Nance says he refuses to hold hearings on same-sex couples’ adoptions “as a matter of conscience.”

He’s not the only authority defying the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that made marriage equality the law of the land. So-called “religious freedom” bills in Texas, South Dakota and Alabama could let private adoption agencies discriminate against same-sex couples. When pressed on the question, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos recently refused to tell lawmakers whether she believes the federal government should deny government funds to schools that discriminate against the children of LGBT parents – or LGBT students.

The number of men married to each other who have children is rising following legal rulings about marriage equality.
Shutterstock

Maybe these officials, judges and lawmakers should check out the research on how gay parents differ from straight parents. So far, most of this scholarship has focused on the social, emotional and cognitive outcomes of children they raise. (Spoiler alert: These kids turn out fine.)

As a former teacher who now researches gay dads and their families while pursuing a doctorate in education, I am studying how the growing number of men married to other men are raising their children. So far, I’m finding few differences between them and their straight peers of similar socioeconomic status – especially regarding their children’s schooling.

A growing population

Since the Census Bureau estimates but does not count the number of households headed by two fathers, it’s hard to track them.

Plans were taking shape for the Census Bureau to begin counting same-sex-parented households in 2020. They seem unlikely to move forward due to recent budget cuts, the census director’s recent resignation and the political climate.

Nevertheless, The American Community Survey, the Census Bureau’s ongoing demographic survey of approximately three million households, already follows same-sex parenting. It estimates that in 2015, almost 40,000 two-dad households were raising children, compared to about 30,000 in 2010.

Actors Neil Patrick Harris and Gideon Scott Burtka-Harris, who are married to each other, brought their twins to the ‘Smurfs 2’ premiere in 2013.
John Shearer/Invision/AP

Parenting roles

How do parents in these families settle into specific roles? In short, just like heterosexual parents do.

Research suggests that affluent, white, two-father households adhere to traditional parenting roles. One is the primary breadwinner, while the other earns either less income or none at all and handles most of the caregiving and chores.

However, two-dad households can challenge the 1940s Norman Rockwell image of gendered parenting – just like heterosexual couples can.

Households with two fathers working full-time rely on daycare facilities, babysitters, housekeepers and nearby relatives for support. Some of these men even take on responsibilities based on skills and strengths, rather than who fits the socially and culturally constructed mold of being more “motherly” or “fatherly.”

Research suggests that two-dad households may not differ that much from the parenting patterns of heterosexual couples.
www.shutterstock.com

Community and school engagement

And that’s where the parenting of gay dads may differ from a traditional heterosexual household, as my research and the work of other scholars suggests.

While interviewing and spending time with 20 two-dad families living in the Northeast for my current study, I have learned that they’re apt to step up. Many become involved as classroom parents, voluntarily assisting teachers, reading books or leading singalongs. Some take leadership roles by becoming active PTA members or organizing events that go beyond their children’s classes. In some cases, gay fathers become PTA presidents or serve on school boards.

Like all civically engaged parents, gay fathers support their local museums and libraries and enroll their kids in camps and extracurricular activities. They sometimes do additional volunteer work for social justice groups.

The largest-scale survey to date was conducted in 2008 by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, an organization focused on the safety of LGBT students in schools. That study, which included 588 LGBT parents, suggested that gay fathers could be more likely to be involved in school-based activities than heterosexual dads.

Aside from the simple fact that they love their children just like all parents do, Abbie Goldberg, a Clark University researcher, and her colleagues have shown that increased presence may be due, in part, to fathers’ initiatives to counter bias and assert more same-sex visibility and inclusion in schools. My current study, indicates the same. Many of the men taking part have told me that being actively involved helps them preemptively counteract potential negative encounters with school personnel and other families.

Gay dads prefer schools and communities that are safe and inclusive. Beyond that, they want judges like Nance and lawmakers bent on barring them from fatherhood to see that two-dad families are for the most part just like any other family.

Andrew Leland, Ph.D. Candidate, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

From the Archives: GOP congresswoman headlines youthful same-sex marriage event on Capitol Hill

GOP congresswoman headlines youthful same-sex marriage event on Capitol Hill
July 11, 2012 8:18 PM MST

Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry is a new organization that was launched at a reception on July 10 at the Capitol Hill Club, the social club for Republican party members and activists mere blocks from the U.S. Capitol, Supreme Court Building, and Library of Congress.

The featured speaker at the reception was Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), who as chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is one of the highest-ranking women and Hispanics in Congress. (Ros-Lehtinen immigrated to the United States from Cuba.)

Calling the gathering of just over 100 people a “great celebration,” Ros-Lehtinen used her brief remarks to outline the shared values of Republicans and conservatives.

‘Core principles’
“This new initiative,” she said, “helps highlight the role of young conservatives and Republicans from around the country who agree on this issue and many others. We are all here because we believe in the same core principles.”

Those principles, she continued, include limited government.

“We believe that the best way that the federal government can help in spurring economic growth, which we so badly need in this country, is to get out of the way and let the small and medium businesses thrive.”

Another shared principle is, she said, “the equality of opportunity that’s available for each and every one of us, no matter where we come from, no matter our circumstances.”

She emphasized a third principle, “that the individual and the family are the central engines in our society. The right of individuals to lead their lives without government intrusion is a bedrock Republican, conservative value.”

More than sex
That central principle, Ros-Lehtinen said, “is more than just about sexual orientation.”

It is, she explained, “about the fundamental rights that we all share as Americans. It’s bad enough that we have to deal with the overregulation of our economy. No one should have to deal with government red tape when it comes to committing themselves to those whom they love.”

After her remarks, in an informal press gaggle that included the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, the twelve-term congresswoman pointed out that an organization like Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry represents “a generational shift.”

The question of whether to expand marriage equality in the United States, she predicted, is “a problem that many years down the road, we’ll look back upon this time and say, ‘This was a problem? This was an issue? This was a ballot initiative?’”

‘New image for Republicans’
Ros-Lehtinen, who is seeking re-election this year in Florida's 18th congressional district, said that “things are moving in the right direction thanks to the young people who are making a difference. To harness this energy on this issue,” she said, “is very important” because it presents “a whole new image for Republicans and we’ve got to win the minds and hearts of the next generation.”

From her perspective, she explained, “things are changing slowly -- too slowly for me, but you’ve got to be working the issues at the local level in order to get to the very top.”

She pointed out that the reception was being held in the Capitol Hill Club, a traditional Republican gathering place, yet “everybody’s here and there’s no problem. Maybe even only 20 years ago, this would have created a ruckus.” (Indeed, the room where the reception was held had a portrait of the late Senator Jesse Helms, an ardent opponent of gay rights, hanging on the wall.)

Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry, she said, “is organic. It’s from the bottom up. It’s going to change attitudes.”

Pressed by a reporter as to whether she is a supporter of gay marriage, Ros-Lehtinen said firmly, “I am” and then repeated, as if for more emphasis, “No, I am.”


Publisher's note: This article is part of a series to mark June as Gay Pride Month. It was originally published on Examiner.com on July 11, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Attorneys Ted Olson, David Boies discuss Proposition 8 and gay marriage at Cato

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on May 18, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Attorneys Ted Olson, David Boies discuss Proposition 8 and gay marriage at Cato
May 18, 2011 2:40 PM MST

Two veteran Supreme Court litigators – former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and David Boies (twice named Lawyer of the Year by the National Law Journal) – spoke at the Cato Institute on May 18. Their topic was not the National Football League’s labor dispute, in which they are each representing opposing sides, but rather a case on which they serve on the same team.

In May 2009, Olson and Boies – who had earlier represented opposite sides in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2000 presidential election case, Bush v. Gore – together filed suit in the state of California to challenge Proposition 8, a ballot measure from the previous November that prohibited same-sex marriage in that state. In August 2010, federal district judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional; its proponents have appealed the decision.

Observers immediately dubbed the two lawyers an “odd couple,” since it seemed unlikely, on its face, that a conservative Republican like Olson (who had served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) would join forces with a Democrat like Boies (who represented Al Gore and worked for the late Senator Edward Kennedy on Capitol Hill) to uphold the rights of gay and lesbian individuals to marry.


‘History of discrimination’

It became clear during the panel discussion at the Cato Institute that both Olson and Boies are equally passionate about this issue. Olson noted that the “history of discrimination [against gay people] is quite unpleasant to reflect on,” and that denying individuals the right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation is akin to granting a person all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship but, by dint of his nationality, denying him the right to call himself a citizen.

Ted Olson

He pointed out that in the pre-Civil War slave era, slaves were prohibited from marrying because marriage would be a symbol of their independence, and that when emancipation came, slaves rushed to be married because it was a way of asserting their new freedom.

Similarly, Boies asserted that “we all have an interest in protecting individual rights against government discrimination.” He pointed out that his clients and the proponents of Prop 8 both agree that marriage is a fundamental right that has been confirmed 14 times by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Boies said that depriving gay and lesbian citizens of the right to marry seriously harms them and the children they are raising. And, he pointed out, there is no benefit to other people from depriving gay men and lesbians of the right to marry.

After the panel discussion – which also included comments from former White House chief of staff John Podesta and Cato Institute chairman Robert Levy – Ted Olson spoke briefly with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about the case, which was originally designated Perry v. Schwarzenegger but is now called Perry v. Brown because of the change in governors in California.


Overwhelming evidence

With regard to the prospects for the case, which is now stalled in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals while some peripheral matters are being litigated, Olson said, “We hope that we’ll get ultimately to the Supreme Court and have the Supreme Court affirm the rights of gay and lesbian individuals to be treated equally and with decency and dignity, not just in the state of California but everywhere else. The badge of discrimination that’s engraved in the California constitution has to be eliminated.”

He added that the most surprising thing he encountered during the trial was the power of his team’s case.

“We were overwhelmed by the strength of our own case,” Olson said.

“Just to listen to the expert witnesses and to hear the evidence was overwhelming,” he explained. “We had strong convictions about our arguments but the fact that the evidence was so compelling beyond our expectations was very gratifying.”

Boies and Olson predicted that a ruling from the Ninth Circuit will come late this year or in early 2012, and that if the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to hear a further appeal, the high court’s decision is not likely for at least two years.

From the Archives: Author Charles Murray argues same-sex marriage is ‘not a big deal’

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 22, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Author Charles Murray argues same-sex marriage is ‘not a big deal’
February 22, 2012 8:15 PM MST

Appearing February 22 on “The Schilling Show,” a Charlottesville talk-radio program, conservative social scientist Charles Murray stated that the advocacy of gay marriage is “not a big deal” with regard to the general decline of marriage in American society. Murray also explained how his own attitude toward same-sex marriage has changed over time.

Murray, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington is the author of What It Means to Be a Libertarian and the current release, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, which was the focus of the discussion with talk-show host Rob Schilling.


Collapse of an institution

In their on-air conversation, Murray noted that in 1960, for the age cohort from 30 to 49, the “white working class was married at well over 80 percent and the white upper-middle class was married at very high rates.” Fifty years later, however, among the white upper-middle class, “84 percent of those ages 30 to 49 are still married in 2010. In the white working class, that had dropped to 48 percent."

That, he said, is “essentially the collapse of a major social institution.”

Because married men and women are better able to participate in civil society – being Little League coaches, attending PTA meetings, running charity drives – Murray explained that “a breakdown of marriage” essentially becomes “a breakdown of community, and it’s focused on working class.”

Schilling asked Murray about the effect of the current debate over the definition of marriage, which differs from the cultural environment in 1960.

‘Not a big deal’

Murray replied that “the advent of the gay marriage movement and the rest of that, I’m inclined to think, is not a big deal.”

He pointed out that, “for one thing, a lot of the rhetoric surrounding the advocacy for gay marriage has been that here are people who want to make a solemn commitment to each other. Writers like Jonathan Rauch and others have made very compelling cases for [how] gays want to engage in this very important social institution.”

A person, he said, does not “have to agree with that to think that, in a way, the visibility of marriage has been raised by that movement, not necessarily denigrated.”

Calling in to “The Schilling Show,” the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner posed a question to Murray about a recent appearance he made on the Charlie Rose television show. In that TV interview, Murray had said how his own opinion about same-sex marriage had changed.

Midway during the interview with Charlie Rose, he explained, the host asked him about that issue.


‘Loving, faithful relationships’

“I have never,” he said, “made a public statement about that before, but the fact is this: My wife and I have maybe half a dozen friends who are gay and are in couples. I mean they’re marriage-like situations. Some of them are guys and some of them are gals. In all of those cases, they’re acting like married people. They appear to have loving, faithful relationships that they take very seriously.”

More than that, he added, “a couple of them have kids that they are as attentive [to] and loving of as any other parents, and so I say to myself, I still have real problems with using the word marriage for anything except a union which has as its main purpose child-bearing and so forth.”

Still, he explained, “on the other hand, it’s really made me rethink the nature of my opposition, because let’s face it: Heterosexuals have made a mess out of marriage in the last couple of decades -- the last half-century, actually -- in ways which leave us in a weak position to suddenly say, ‘Oh, this wonderful institution that we’ve done so well with, you’re trying to interfere with.’”

As a result, Murray said, “I have backed off from leading the fight against gay marriage or even participating in it, and I’m willing to say that this is one instance in which [a new idea is] working out better than I would have expected it to, as I see it.”

From the Archives: Federal court strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban but stays order

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 13, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Federal court strikes down Virginia same-sex marriage ban but stays order

In a case that involves a confusing mix of plaintiffs, defendants, and ex-defendants who have taken the side of the plaintiffs, a federal judge late on the eve of Valentine's Day struck down both Virginia's statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage and a state constitutional amendment that does the same

“The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry,” wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in a 41-page opinion. “Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.”

In the case of Bostic v. Rainey, Wright Allen (nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2011) granted the plaintiffs request for summary judgment and found that “Va. Const. Art. I, § 15-A, Va. Code §§ 20-45.2, 20-45.3, and any other Virginia law that bars same-sex marriage or prohibits Virginia's recognition of lawful same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions unconstitutional. These laws deny Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

At the same time, Wright Allen stayed her order pending review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond.

In strong language, Wright Allen stated that the Commonwealth of Virginia's defense of its same-sex marriage bans failed to meet even the very low legal hurdle of rational-basis analysis

“Virginia's Marriage Laws fail to display a rational relationship to a legitimate purpose,” she wrote, “and so must be viewed as constitutionally infirm under even the least onerous level of scrutiny. Accordingly, this Court need not address Plaintiffs' compelling arguments that the Laws should be subjected to heightened scrutiny."

If there are any “legitimate purposes” behind the same-sex marriage bans, she argued, they “share no rational link with Virginia Marriage Laws being challenged. The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life. These results occur without furthering any legitimate state purpose.”

Wright Allen's ruling follows similar federal court decisions in Utah and Oklahoma (which are cited in her opinion) and, most recently, Kentucky.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, who made national headlines in January when he refused to defend the marriage laws and instead presented a brief on behalf of the gay couples seeking to overturn the ban, issued a short statement in advance of holding a press conference on Friday morning:

In a press release, Herring said that the district court's decision "is a victory for the Constitution and for treating everyone equally under the law. It is the latest step in a journey towards equality for all Virginians, no matter who they are or whom they love.”

Acknowledging the court's stay of its order, Herring noted that the legal process “will continue to play out in the months to come, but this decision shows that Virginia, like America, is coming to a better place in recognizing that every Virginian deserves to be treated equally and fairly.”

Herring's news conference will take place at 11:45 a.m. on Friday, February 14, in the auditorium of the Pocahontas Building at 900 E. Main Street in Richmond.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring will challenge anti-gay marriage laws
Obama’s announcement prompts question, Is gay marriage a ‘new right’?
LP gubernatorial hopeful Robert Sarvis aims for marriage equality in Virginia
Libertarians praise Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling in DOMA case
Author David Lampo brings gay-rights message to conservative Republicans

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-court-strikes-down-virginia-same-sex-marriage-ban-but-stays-order

Stating the obvious in a single newspaper headline

Charlottesville's Daily Progress wins the prize for stating the obvious in its banner headline on Sunday, October 12.

There, above the fold, was this shattering piece of news:

That's right:  "Not all churches open to same-sex marriage."

Next week we'll learn that "Not all halal butchers sell pork" and "Not all Unitarian-Universalists believe in god."

To be fair, the web version of the newspaper's article has a better, more explanatory headline -- but most readers of the Sunday Daily Progress read what's tossed on their lawns in the pre-dawn hours.

Marriage equality and freedom of thought are not incompatible

Affirming their “unwavering commitment to civic and legal equality, including marriage equality,” a diverse group of activists, advocates, lawyers, writers, and others issued a statement today that also affirms their “our unwavering commitment to the values of the open society and to vigorous public debate—the values that have brought us to the brink of victory.“

The statement – prompted in part by the resignation of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich after his contribution to support the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign in California became controversial, and reactions that followed – was published today on the RealClearPolitics web site under the title “Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both.”

Among the 58 individuals who signed the statement are University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter, Wayne State University philosophy professor John Corvino, University of Wisconsin political scientist Donald Downs, NYU law professor Richard Epstein, former Arizona superintendent of public instruction Lisa Graham Keegan, former Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-Arizona), Eli Lehrer of the R Street Institute, former national GOP chairman Ken Mehlman, Minnesota state senator Branden Petersen, Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution, U.S. Senate candidate Robert Sarvis, former Georgia Supreme Court justice Leah Ward Sears, Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute, author and blogger Andrew Sullivan, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, and myself.

The signatories – both gay and non-gay, spanning a spectrum of conservative, liberal, libertarian, and progressive worldviews – argue that “sustaining a liberal society demands a culture that respects and welcomes robust debate, vigorous political advocacy, and a decent respect for differing opinions. People must be allowed to be wrong in order to continually test what is right. We should criticize opposing views, not punish or suppress them.”

In support of that proposition, they note that a “culture of free speech created the social space for us to criticize and demolish the arguments against gay marriage and LGBT equality. For us and our advocates to turn against that culture now would be a betrayal of the movement’s deepest and most humane values.”

In addition to RealClearPolitics, the statement is also posted to iPetition, where any individual may affix his or her signature in support of it.

Although "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent" was only released about two hours ago, commentary on the statement has already appeared on the Independent Gay Forum and the Volokh Conspiracy.  Expect more reactions over the next day or so.

UPDATES: Box Turtle Bulletin also has a post on this.
Somewhat related, the Williams Institute has issued a report that concludes legalizing marriage equality will add $60 million to Virginia economy over its first three years. Scott Shackford offers this at Reason.com. At the Business Law Prof Blog, Joshua Fershee comments from the perspective of, naturally, a business law professor. The Hoover Institution's Peter Berkowitz has posted a commentary at RealClearPolitics. There is also a discussion thread about the statement on DebatePolitics.

UPDATES 2 (April 23): Rod Dreher comments at The American Conservative.  Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) at The Huffington Post.  Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic calls us "the liberal wing of the gay equality movement."  Bryan Preston at the PJ Tatler says the statement is a "nice sentiment" but it's also "unrealistic" (and then criticizes the statement for what it didn't criticize).  Joshua Riddle at Young Conservatives calls the statement "AMAZING" and reprints it in full.

At IGF Culture Watch, David Link explains "Why I Signed."  Someone with the pen name "Buckeye" calls the statement "good news on the free speech front" on the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board.  Andrew Sullivan says "I'm not much of a joiner, but..."  Michael Polemra at National Review Online's "The Corner" says the "signers of this document ought to be really proud of what they have done." Joe Jervis at Joe.My.God says the statement comes from "a coalition of homocons and others."

Justin Snow reports on the statement for Metro Weekly.  News has apparently reached New Zealand, too.  Ilya Somin explains why he chose not to sign.  Zack Ford at ThinkProgress argues that the "pledge" -- his word, not the signers' -- justifies anti-gay activism.

Reactions are still coming in more than 36 hours after the statement was released. "BlackTsunami" comments at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters. John M. Becker calls the statement "repugnant" at the Bilerico Project.

UPDATES 3 (April 24):  Jonathan Rauch replies to critics on The Daily Beast with "Opposing Gay Marriage Doesn’t Make You a Crypto-Racist." Eric Schulzke comments in the Daily Oklahoman and Deseret News. Jennifer Rubin mentions the statement on her Washington Post blog. William D. Lindsey comments critically at Bilgrimage. Signatory Jonathan Rowe links. Viktor Kerney includes an excerpt as well as a link. Even the white supremacists at VDare have their say.

UPDATES 4 (April 25): Peter Wehner calls the statement "an impressive stand on behalf of liberal ideals" in Commentary. The American Spectator's Bill Zeiser mentions the statement at the end of an article about signatory Charles Murray. Jonah Goldberg offers backhanded approval at NRO and Jeremy Hooper replies to Goldberg at Good As You. Will Shetterly agrees with the statement, too.

Doug Gibson compares the statement to a recent speech by LDS leader Dallin H. Oaks at the Standard-Examiner. Nelson Garcia alleges some of the signatories once "decided to throw me under the bus." Gina Dalfonzo expresses skepticism over the statement's optimism at Breakpoint. Rob Tisinai admits "Yep, I Signed It" at Waking Up Now. Marvin Olasky cites the statement in an article called "Christians and gay-rights advocates can agree on freedom to dissent" at World.

UPDATES 5 (April 26): Signatory Richard Epstein "sort of" explains his position on same-sex marriage at Ricochet. The blogger at Pink-Briefcase names the statement one of "Five [Awesome] Things" she read this week.

UPDATE 6 (April 27): Carl F. Cannon, Washington bureau chief for RealClearPolitics, writes "On Gay Marriage, Intolerance Cuts Both Ways."

UPDATES 7 (April 28):  Jillian Page offers a Canadian perspective on The Montreal Gazette.  In USA Today, Glenn Harlan Reynolds draws a comparison to the case of a libertarian science fiction writer coming under fire.

UPDATES 8 (April 29):  "Michael-in-Norfolk" says the statement "Is Wrong and Justifies Anti-Gay Activism." Morgan Lee reports about the controversy on The Christian Post.

UPDATES 9 (April 30):  Spiked editor Brendan O'Neill comments on "coercion dolled up as civil rights."  At The Colu.mn, Andy Birkey reports that "Minnesotans sign on to controversial 'Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent.'"

Is Bob Marshall trying to undermine his own same-sex marriage amendment?

In 2006, Virginia voters approved an addition to the state's constitution intended to prohibit same-sex marriage and anything similar to it within the Commonwealth, including marriages that were legally contracted in other states or foreign countries.

Known as the "Marshall-Newman Amendment" after its two principal patrons, Delegate Bob Marshall and state Senator Steve Newman, the ballot measure became Article I, Section 15-A of the Virginia Constitution, reading:

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

(Section 15 is entitled, "Qualities necessary to preservation of free government."  If you're puzzled as to how a ban on gay marriage fits into that category, you're not alone.)

One of the big issues under consideration by the General Assembly in its 2014 session is ethics reform, sparked by last year's revelations about questionable and large gifts made to former Governor Bob McDonnell and his family by former Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams.

It happens that Delegate Bob Marshall -- the same Bob Marshall who sponsored the anti-marriage provision of the Virginia Constitution -- has introduced a bill that expands the categories of familial relationships that should be affected by ethics rules.  Basically, if a person falls within one of these categories, that person is subject to limits on gifts based upon the individual's relationship to an officeholder.

In HB 15, Marshall proposes this new clause amending § 2.2-3117, § 30-111, of the Code of Virginia:

For purposes of reporting gifts pursuant to Item 5 and Schedule E, "immediate family" also includes (a) the officer's or employee's or his spouse's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, and sister and (b) any person with whom the officer or employee has been habitually cohabiting in a relationship analogous to a marriage.

The Marshall-Newman Amendment, now part of the Virginia Constitution, states clearly that the Commonwealth "shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage."

Rick Sincere (left) and Bob Marshall, April 2012

Yet Marshall wants to extend ethics law to cover people "in a relationship analogous to a marriage."

Relationships "analogous to a marriage" have no standing under Virginia law, in large part because Bob Marshall wanted them to have no such standing.

Now Bob Marshall wants to give such relationships legal status for purpose of ethics legislation.

Does Marshall want to have it both ways?  Either relationships "analogous to a marriage" exist under Virginia law, or they don't.

If individuals are subject to equal treatment under the law in one case -- that is, limiting their ability to accept gifts because they are in a relationship with a public servant -- shouldn't they also be treated equally in all cases?

If Delegate Marshall is trying to set a precedent that will upend his own amendment to the Constitution, we should welcome it.  If he wants to recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships among gay couples, he should say so clearly and persuade the General Assembly to change the laws restricting such relationships across the board.

Of course, it could be that Delegate Marshall is oblivious to how HB 15 contravenes Article I, Section 15-A of the Virginia Constitution, though I doubt it.  He's far too intelligent and clever for that to be the case.

Here's a reminder of Marshall's stance on gay marriage, when he was running for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2012, answering a question about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) along with George Allen, E.W. Jackson, and Jamie Radtke:

So here's the question:  Has Bob Marshall had a change of heart?  Is he now open to gay relationships being recognized under the law but too shy to say so?

What do you think?  Leave comments below or tweet your thoughts to me at @rick_sincere.